Abstract
The main objective of this study was to examine how different stand types influenced the tendency of visitors for varying recreational activities (i.e., hiking, trekking, camping and hunting) from 1993 to 2018 in the surrounding areas of Uluyayla Natural Recreation Site in Bartin, northern Turkey. A total of 627 visitors were selected on a voluntary basis, and questioned in the form of questionnaire. Most of the participants were in the age of 21–40 years old, and they were mostly (62.4%) male. Most of the participants (82.7%) lived in cities, while 62.8% of them were tourists when visiting the site. In determining the preferences of the visitors regarding the stand types for different recreational activities, several images of each stand were shared with them, and they were asked which stand type they would prefer for a given recreation activity (i.e., hiking, tracking, camping and hunting). A range of options from 1 to 5 in Likert’s scale was used in evaluating the given responses. The degree of positive and negative effects was examined via trend analysis. It was found that stand type had influence on the preferences of visitors regarding the recreational activities. In general, unmanaged and moderately treated stands were more preferred by visitors for the recreational purposes, compared to the previously managed stands. On the other hand, visitors’ preference for the activities were different during two periods (i.e., 1993–2005 and 2006–2018). For each recreational activity, there was an increasing trend from 1993 to 2018. There had been a continuous increase for hunting since 1996, and for trekking and camping after 1999. The increases between 1993–1996 and 1996–1999 were likely due to the increasing awareness of the society as a result of the training and consciousness raising activities for nature conservation. The demand on the recreational activities continuously increased in unmanaged and moderately treated stands, while no significant changes were examined in the previously managed stands. The study points out that forest planning and management should consider different needs of visitors for recreational infrastructure.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aktürk E, Altunel AO, Kara F (2020) Investigation of the 18-year status and changes of mixed stands in Europe. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi 22(3): 929–938. https://doi.org/10.24011/barofd.744832
Arnberger A, Eder R, Preiner S, et al. (2021) Landscape Preferences of Visitors to the Danube Floodplains National Park, Vienna. Water 13(16): 2178. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13162178
Arnberger A, Gobster PH, Schneider IE, et al. (2022) Landowner Acceptability of Silvicultural Treatments to Restore an Open Forest Landscape. Forests 13(5): 770. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13050770
Borrass L, Kleinschmit D, Winkel G (2017) The “German model” of integrative multifunctional forest management — Analysing the emergence and political evolution of a forest management concept. Forest Policy Econ 77: 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.06.028
Brunson MW, Reiter DK (1996) Effects of ecological information on judgments about scenic impacts of timber harvest. J Environ Manage 46(1): 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0004
Buckley R (2000) Neat trends: Current issues in nature, eco-and adventure tourism. Int J Tourism Res 2: 437–444.
Carlson A (2001) Aesthetic preferences for sustainable landscapes: seeing and knowing. Forests and landscapes-linkin gecology, sustainability and aesthetics. IUFRO Research Series 6: 31–41.
Casola WR, Peterson MN, Sills EO, et al. (2022) Economic contributions of wildlife management areas in North Carolina. Forest Policy Econ 140: 102747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102747
Cavus I, Kalin L, Kara F (2019) Changes in stream morphology protected by best management practices under effects of upstream disturbances. Environ Earth Sci 78(16): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8540-5
Cullinane C, Koontz L (2019) National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation. Fort Collins, CO.
Daniel TC (2001) Aesthetic preference and ecological sustainability. Forests and Landscape: linking ecology, sustainability and aesthetics. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, IUFRO Research Series 6: 15–29.
De Meo I, Cantiani P, Paletto A (2020) Effect of Thinning on Forest Scenic Beauty in a Black Pine Forest in Central Italy. Forests 11(12): 1295. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11121295
Dudek T (2017) Recreational potential as an indicator of accessibility control in protected mountain forest areas. J Mt Sci 14(7): 1419–1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-016-4018-z
Ebenberger M, Arnberger A (2019) Exploring visual preferences for structural attributes of urban forest stands for restoration and heat relief. Urban For Urban Green 41: 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.011
Edwards D, Jay M, Jensen F, et al. (2012) Public preferences across Europe for different forest stand types as sites for recreation. Ecol Soc 17(1): 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04520-170127
Fang X, Gao T, Hedblom M, et al. (2021) Soundscape perceptions and preferences for different groups of users inurban recreational forest parks. Forests 12(4): 468. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12040468
Frick J, Bauer N, von Lindern, E, Hunziker M (2018) What forest is in the light of people’s perceptions and values: socio-cultural forest monitoring in Switzerland. Geograph Helv 73(4): 335–345. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-73-335-2018
Galliano SJ, Loeffler GM (2000) Scenery Assessment: Scenic Beauty at the Ecoregion Scale, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Portland, Oregon General Technical Report PNW-GTR-472.
Gobster PH, Westphal LM (2004) The human dimensions of urban greenways: planning for recreation and related experiences. Landsc Urban Plann 68(2–3): 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00162-2
Gundersen V, Vistad OI (2016) Public opinions and use of various types of recreational infrastructure in boreal forest settings. Forests 7(6): 113. https://doi.org/10.3390/f7060113
Gundersen V, Stange EE, Kaltenborn BP, Vistad O I (2017) Public visual preferences for deadwood in natural boreal forests: The effects of added information. Landsc Urban Plann 158: 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.020
Hallikainen V (2000) The Finnish “Social Wilderness”. In: Wilderness within the Context of Larger Systems, Proceedings of the Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Missoula, MT, USA. pp 23–27. May 2000. In: McCool SF, Cole DN, Borrie WT, O’Loughlin J (eds.), Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Ogden, UT, USA.
Heyman E (2012) Analysing recreational values and management effects in an urban forest with the visitor-employed photography method. Urban For Urban Green 11(3): 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.02.003
Iqbal J (2019) Past and present silvicultural systems and tending operations in Himalayan moist temperate forests of Pakistan. For Ideas 25(1): 37–48.
Karjalainen E (2006) The visual preferences for forest regeneration and field afforestation-four case studies in Finland. Dissertationes Forestales. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Biosciences. Doctoral dissertation. p 111.
Kara F, Lhotka JM (2020) Comparison of unmanaged and managed Trojan Fir-Scots pine forests for structural complexity. Turk J Agric For 44(1): 62–70. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1903-58
Lazdane L, Jankevica M, Zigmundei D (2013) Diversity of Landscape Aesthetics in Rural, Periurbanand Urban Ecosystems. Mokslas—Lietuvos ateitis/Science—Future of Lithuania 5(3): 229–241. https://doi.org/10.3846/mla.2013.40
Maier C, Winkel G (2017) Implementing nature conservation through integrated forest management: A street-level bureaucracy perspective on the German public forest sector. Forest Pol Econ 82: 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.12.015
Mayer H, Aksoy H (1986) Walder der Türkei. Gustav Fisher Verlag, Stutgart, New York.
Manning R, Valliere W, Minteer B (1999) Values, ethics, and attitudes toward national forest management: An empirical study. Soc Nat Resour 12(5): 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419299279515
Paletto A, De Meo I (2021) Nature-Based Recreation in Peri-Urban and Semi-Natural Forests: The Visitors’ Perspective in Two Case Studies in Italy. In: Borz SA, Curtu AL, Muşat EC (eds.), Forests and Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium. Transilvania University Press. Braşov, Romania.
Parsons R, Daniel TC (2002) Goodlooking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landsc Urban Plann 60(1): 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00051-8
Paletto A, Guerrini S, De Meo I (2017) Exploring visitors’ perceptions of silvicultural treatments to increase the destination attractiveness of peri-urban forests: a case study in Tuscany Region (Italy). Urban For Urban Green 27: 314–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.06.020
R Development Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Rathmann J, Sacher P, Volkmann N, Mayer M (2020) Using the visitor-employed photography method to analyse deadwood perceptions of forest visitors: a case study from Bavarian Forest National Park, Germany. Eur J For Res 139: 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-020-01260-0
Ribe RG (2009) In-stands cenic beauty of variable retention harvests and mature forests in the US Pacific Northwest: The effects of basal area, density, retention pattern and downwood. J Environ Manag 91(1): 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.08.014
Sacher P, Meyerhoff J, Mayer M (2022) Evidence of the association between deadwood and forest recreational site choices. Forest Pol Econ 135: 102638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102638
Schirpke U, Scolozzi R, Kiessling A, Tappeiner U (2021) Recreational ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps: Preferences, visitor groups and management implications. J Outdoor Recreat Tour 35: 100421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2021.100421
Schultz PW, Gouveia VV, Cameron LD, et al. (2005) Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. J Cross Cult Psychol 36(4): 457–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221052759
Seibold S, Gossner MM, Simons NK, et al. (2019) Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574(7780): 671–674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3
Sinclair M, Mayer M, Woltering M, Ghermandi A (2020) Valuing nature-based recreation using a crowdsourced travel cost method: A comparison to onsite survey data and value transfer. Ecosyst Serv 45: 101165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101165
Shelby B, Thompson JR, Brunson M, Johnson R (2005) A decade of recreation ratings for six silviculture treatments in Western Oregon. J Environ Manag 75(3): 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.12.004
Skår M (2010) Forest dear and forest fear: Dwellers’ relationships to their neighbourhood forest. Landsc Urban Plann 98(2): 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.017
Spenceley A, Schagner JP, Engels B, et al. (2021) Visitors count! Guidance for protected areas on the economic analysis of visitation. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, France and German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, Bonn, Germany. 111 p.
Tessa Hegetschweiler K, Fischer C, Moretti M, Hunziker M (2020). Integrating data from National Forest Inventories into socio-cultural forest monitoring—a new approach. Scand J Forest Res 35(5–6): 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2020.1799066
Thorn S, Chao A, Georgiev KB, et al. (2020) Estimating retention benchmarks for salvage logging to protect biodiversity. Nat Comm 11(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18612-4
Topacoğlu O, Kara F, Yer EN, Savci M (2017) Determination of deadwood volume and the affecting factors in Trojan fir forests. Austrian J For Sci 3: 245–260.
Tudoran GM, Cicşa A, Cicşa M, Dobre AC (2022). Management of Recreational Forests in the Romanian Carpathians. Forests 13(9): 1369. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13091369
URL 1 (2019) http://bolge9.ormansu.gov.tr/9bolge/AnaSayfa/falliyetlerimiz/milliparklar/yedigoller/yedigollergenisbilgi.aspx?sflang=tr.
Wilkes-Allemann J, Pütz M, Hanewinkel M (2017) Forest recreation as a governance problem: Four case studies from Switzerland. Eur J Forest Res 136: 511–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10342-017-1049-0
van den Bosch M, Sang AO (2017) Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health — A systematic review of reviews. Environ Res 158: 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.040
Vítková L, Bače R, Kjučukov P, Svoboda M (2018) Deadwood management in Central European forests: Key considerations for practical implementation. Forest Ecol Manag 429: 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2018.07.034
Wang X, Zhang J, Wu C (2022) Users’ recreation choices and setting preferences for trails in urban forests in Nanjing, China. Urban For Urban Green 73: 127602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2022.127602
Yılmaz O, Boone WJ, Andersen HO (2004). Views of elementary and middle school Turkish students toward environmental issues. Int J Sci Educ 26(12): 1527–1546. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000177280
Zhang T, Zhang W, Meng H, Zhang Z (2019) Analyzing visitors’ preferences and evaluation of satisfaction based on different attributes, with forest trails in the Akasawa National Recreational Forest, Central Japan. Forests 10(5): 431. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10050431
Zhou CW, Yan LB, Yu LF, et al. (2019) Effect of short—term forest bathing in urban parks on perceived anxiety of young-adults: A pilot study in Guiyang, Southwest China. Chin Geogr Sci 29: 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-018-0987-x
Acknowledgements
As authors, we would like to thank the General Directorate of Nature Conservation and National Parks and Ulus Forest Directorate for providing us the research area, as well as their support and field assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Varol, T., Özel, H.B., Kara, F. et al. Effects of stand types on recreational preferences of society in the Sub-Alpine Zone, northern Turkey. J. Mt. Sci. 19, 3246–3256 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-022-7391-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-022-7391-9